Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
Yes, good thought Soul.
We also know that the elimination of all fossil fuels will never happen in our lifetime. People enjoy certain types of recreation too much to just let go of gas powered engines.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
How is it silly? It's a well-known and well-tested negotiation tactic.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
It could be. It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
It could be. It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see.
Yes indeed we shall!
I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table. “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha. No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table. “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha. No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol
I agree, obviously if you ask for way more than your worth you will lose.
I'd honestly like her to clarify that "unwilling to work" shit. that can't be fucking really what we all think it means. if it does, that is just preposterous.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table. “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha. No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.
Im going with naive and inexperienced. I doubt she is stupid.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
It could be. It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see.
Yes indeed we shall!
I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table. “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha. No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol
I agree, obviously if you ask for way more than your worth you will lose.
I'd honestly like her to clarify that "unwilling to work" shit. that can't be fucking really what we all think it means. if it does, that is just preposterous.
Exactly, at first I thought “maybe that was a typo”. The more I thought about it and how carefully edited these proposals are, though...I’m just not sure. Sure does not help dissolve the “freeloader” or “leach” narrative.
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table. “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha. No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.
just to address the part you added after I commented, I don't think she is dumb at all. Listen/watch any of her interviews. she is very knowledgeable. I think the term I'd use for her is "overly enthusiastic". she might be going after too much too quickly.
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
I think your examples fall into "unable ". It needs to be defined for sure.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but when overplayed, it just makes people walk away from the negotiation table. “Economic security for those unwilling to work”, haha. No one should need to negotiate or compromise for that to be erased, lol. I am seriously starting to think that she is as dumb as many have portrayed her.
Im going with naive and inexperienced. I doubt she is stupid.
She has a starry-eyed "I'm going to change the world!" vibe about her that definitely fits the "naïve" description.
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
I think your examples fall into "unable ". It needs to be defined for sure.
I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category. There are hoarders who seek no help, and shut ins, and all kinds of "off" people who could be said to refuse to work. And they do. And what of them? It's not like we can just let them drop dead and decompose just because they aren't living up to basic expectations .... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
I do think she needs to clarify wtf she is talking about. Otherwise everyone that reads it is just assuming.
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
I think your examples fall into "unable ". It needs to be defined for sure.
I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category.... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.
Doesn't this creep into the "living wage" territory, where some advocate that there is a base wage that all Americans are entitled to and the government covers that if their employment, or lack of, doesn't? I've read more people advocating it as the threat of automation expands. I read this provision as connected to that theory.
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
I think your examples fall into "unable ". It needs to be defined for sure.
I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category.... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.
Doesn't this creep into the "living wage" territory, where some advocate that there is a base wage that all Americans are entitled to and the government covers that if their employment, or lack of, doesn't? I've read more people advocating it as the threat of automation expands. I read this provision as connected to that theory.
Are you talking about universal income? Well, we'll have to see what she meant. But universal income and welfare for fucked up people who refuse to get a job aren't the same thing. Welfare is a response to individuals' conditions that prevent them from being a part of the employment system. Universal income is a response to a system that prevents individuals from being a part of that system. I would assume AOC probably supports the theory of universal income, but I didn't assume that's what she meant in this case.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.
I think your examples fall into "unable ". It needs to be defined for sure.
I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category.... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.
Doesn't this creep into the "living wage" territory, where some advocate that there is a base wage that all Americans are entitled to and the government covers that if their employment, or lack of, doesn't? I've read more people advocating it as the threat of automation expands. I read this provision as connected to that theory.
“Unwilling” is such a weird word to use. I cannot believe that they would not put examples in parentheses or something.
Bad politics, but I got news for you guys. A lot of people are going to be losing their jobs in this future economy. If people don't want to work (which will be a small minority) they will be doing us a favour. There are going to be plenty of pissed off people who want to work but won't be able too because of disappearing jobs. We will have a lot of unhappy people on guaranteed income.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but I’m talking about the starting point. If you offer $1 for a house you won’t get a counter offer.
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...
It is still a stretch. How are you connecting this to AOC? I assumed Meltdown posted this in response to our shift in the convo to universal income.
And did you actually read the whole article? Just wondering. Because the experiment doesn't come close to shutting down the idea of a successful system that incorporates universal income. But a lot of changes have to happen for it to work, obviously.
What I think we can all agree on is that AOC isn't looney toons. She's obviously very smart and sane IMO. Not everyone's cup of tea, that's all.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions?
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.
Yes, but I’m talking about the starting point. If you offer $1 for a house you won’t get a counter offer.
Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
It could be. It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see.
Yes indeed we shall!
I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.
Agreed. That's a good thing.
Yeah that’s mostly a good thing. So long as she doesn’t make them see compromise as a failure the way the recent congress has. She can help change that.
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...
It is still a stretch. How are you connecting this to AOC? I assumed Meltdown posted this in response to our shift in the convo to universal income.
And did you actually read the whole article?Just wondering. Because the experiment doesn't come close to shutting down the idea of a successful system that incorporates universal income. But a lot of changes have to happen for it to work, obviously.
What I think we can all agree on is that AOC isn't looney toons. She's obviously very smart and sane IMO. Not everyone's cup of tea, that's all.
Maybe not looney tunes, but straight up kooky dukes for sure, lol
Comments
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)
We also know that the elimination of all fossil fuels will never happen in our lifetime. People enjoy certain types of recreation too much to just let go of gas powered engines.
It is a step in the right direction though.
www.headstonesband.com
I'd honestly like her to clarify that "unwilling to work" shit. that can't be fucking really what we all think it means. if it does, that is just preposterous.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/08/finland-free-cash-experiment-fails-to-boost-employment?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHho
www.headstonesband.com